Talk:Nuclear power phase-out

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1 - August 11 - August 18, 2005

Contents 1 Discussion of the to-do list 1.1 Removed todo list 2 How is the price of liabiity insurance NOT evidence of risk? 3 Science Magazine and Nature 4 Unverifiable information 5 Nuclear =! Banks 6 Graphs 7 Nuclear proliferation 8 Future perspectives of nuclear energy 9 Pro and cons discussion at the end 10 Biodegrading? 11 Refactor 12 Million-billion 13 Estimate for damages of a nuclear accident? 14 Nuclear power in Denmark 15 Greenhouse gases and environmental protection 16 Wind the "only" alternative? 17 Belgium 18 Lets compare like periods 19 Random POV and other needed changes 20 Chernobyl figures 21 Spain 22 contradict

[edit] Discussion of the to-do list

There seems to be a factual error in the article. It is indeed possible to successfully build a bomb with reactor grade plutonium, as has been demonstrated in a 1962 weapons test by the DOE. See: http://www.ccnr.org/plute_bomb.html

I don't think it was an error but rather misunderstanding. Tested device was not created from "normal" fuel. Anyway it was my mistake not to mention the bomb that has more psychological than practical significance. Hope this correct my mistake. Thanks for reminding me.--Trigor 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

152.78.98.1 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you propose these countries? They are not even considering nuclear phase out. --Trigor 08:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

My reasons for proposing the countries are as follows. A general reason is that they are important for the discussion. I think it has to be considered why some countries phase out while others don't. To be more specific, there are some questions that can be asked (including): (Very general) What's the differences between those countries? What factors determine a decision for a phase-out or against it? (geo-political, strategical, social, etc.) What kind of energy do they use? What are predictions for energy use of these countries in the future?

You ask why they are important if they haven't phased out. A similar question was asked earlier concerning a paragraph about Australia. I think they are important for the discussion. It could be made an argument that those countries should be moved to nuclear energy policy and I have already moved some (more general) information from the article to nuclear energy policy in a (admittedly hectic) split (to get listed on DYK). I still think, the specifics of individual countries should be evaluated in the article and that's why especially those countries are important, even - or maybe because - they didn't phase out. You can imagine it like a showdown between the countries: both sides, the countries that phased out present their arguments why they phased out and the other countries present their arguments why they didn't. Then their is a sum-up of the individual factors that led to decisions and some statistics which regions prefer nuclear energy and which don't use it. This will also help to balance the discussion towards NPOV.

As for the individual countries, I think that the countries I proposed are especially relevant for the discussion (I reordered them according to perceived importance for the discussion).

• China and India are currently building/planning many new nuclear power stations to cover the needs of growing economies and two big nations.
• France depends largely (between 70 and 80%) on nuclear power and has many reactors. France is a special case if you look at all the other European countries that phase out. The French people are also not so much worried about security as are other people (like US). France is building new reactors. France exports energy to Italy and Belgium, etc. There is also COGEMA La Hague site.

It is not true! French people ARE worried about security, maybe as much as other people (like US). 54% are in favour a soft nuclear power phase-out (see complete survey results at [1]).--Enr-v 05:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is [2] --212.200.123.157 08:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Russia and the Ukraine also build new reactors (I am not completely sure about the Ukraine). It is speculated that Russia wants to export electricity to a phased-out Europe (possibly predicting energy crises there). The people in Russia and the Ukraine still remember Chernobyl (Ukraine is former Soviet Union) and it would be interesting to see how people see that.
• The US has the most nuclear power stations in the world, that's interesting per se (etc. see above to interpolate other reasons).
• As has Canada. Canada is also one of the biggest suppliers of uranium in the world (as is Australia).
• Great Britain has Sellafield and relies on nuclear energy. Why?
• I listed Iran because of the current situation between Iran and the US, caused by nuclear programs. This could be relevant for the proliferation argument (see argument section in the article). I listed North Korea for the same reason.
• There are several other countries that are interested in building new plants. They could all be important.

that's my reasons. Please comment Ben ^T/_{C 09:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)}

Great. Can you add Finland as well? It is because Finland is also working on Nuclear Power development. They have recently commisioned 5th reactor. Thanks for your explanation. I am going to work on it.

--Trigor 21:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey Trigor. The broader the discussion gets the better. Finnland sounds interesting, European and pro nuke, between Russia and Norway... I'll add Finland to the list. And I just checked, there is nothing on Norway (nor on Denmark, Greece, Poland). BTW, if you find good resources for a topic on the list, please add them. Ben ^T/_{C 03:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Removed todo list

As Talk:Nuclear power phase-out/to do hasn't been updated since last November, IMO it is serving no purpose to have it at the top of this talk page. Feel free to reinstate it if you wish to use it, it's just a matter of adding {{to do}} to the top of the page (or wherever you feel it belongs on the page). Many of the issues raised are still outstanding, as are several others, but it needs to be updated to reflect the activity that has occurred over the past two months.

I'd suggest that if it is reinstated, it should be in bullet-point form. It's far too long to be useful as is. Andrewa 03:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is the price of liabiity insurance NOT evidence of risk?

I object to the removal of Price anderson as evidence that the government as well as industry firmly asserting that nuclear reactors are riskier (in terms of external liabiity) than the market is willing to bear. And why should we shield this fact from the reading public? Is that what Encyclopedias do? I thought that's what book burning was for. Benjamin Gatti

The removed paragraph said:

The clearest evidence that current and future Nuclear reactors are unsafe is the fact that the companies who build and operate them are unwilling to accept liability. This is unlike any other energy technology. Wind power for example does not need a taxpayer subsidized liability program in order to attract investors. The Price-anderson act, which transfers the risk of a nuclear incident from wealthy and informed investors to relatively poorer and less-informed taxpayers was extended in the Energy policy act of 2005 to apply to future reactors in the US.

Though it may be a valid argument, I think it is a little POV in the wording. If you restate it you could probably achieve a consensus to put it back. You should also ask User:SEWilco for his/her word if you do that. Ben ^T/_{C 06:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)}

Perhaps like this ...

The evidence most cited that Nuclear reactors continue to be unsafe is the fact that the companies who build and operate them are unwilling to accept liability for potential damages. This is unlike any other energy technology; Wind power for example does not need a taxpayer subsidized liability waiver in order to attract investors. The Price-anderson act, which transfers the cost of potential pain and suffering caused by a nuclear explosion from well-informed investors to taxpayer, who are much less-informed about the risks because of the plants and their operations are strictly confidential, was extended in the Energy policy act of 2005 to apply to future reactors in the US. Benjamin Gatti

Wind power is heavily subsidized in all countries. It is not economical without such subsides. Furthermore it requires a backup of some kind that can give constant base load. Saying it is not subsidized is not truth and there is no such example. Nuclear explosion is also wrong because it can't happen in nuclear power plant. High confidentiality is also not in order. I would be surprised if nuclear power in west would refuse you a visit. I think it is also badly scripted and has bias. What you should tell is that insurance is partly guaranteed by government without pig and risk comments. Let reader judge and take their own conclusion.

--Trigor 22:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If we include the health effects of coal, the military costs of stealing mideast oil from the people (with the help of their rulers which we install), and the 95% of direct subsides which went to nuclear, its pretty hard to argue that wind isn't the least subsidized form of energy - but I'd love to hear you try ... Benjamin Gatti

Remember to update the article on wind energy. (SEWilco 02:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Global conspiracy on other side, wind is more subsidized in most of the countries. It is sold under fixed prize; it is subsidized by government and customer. That is not case with nuclear power. You can watch at DOE web page level of subsidies and if wind isn't top of the list damn me. Same is in other countries especially in Europe. Nuclear power on the other hand has significantly less subsidizes.

--Trigor 07:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

On the flip side, Nuclear has recieved 95% of subsidies, even if it isn't highest today, it will shoot up again when the plants subsidies authorized by the Energy Policy act of 2005 are honored. Nuclear subsidies are eiether hidden in the form of risk garentees, or occur in bvrief spikes (when a plant is built) but still Nuclear enjoys 95% of accumulated subsidies. Benjamin Gatti

Could we somehow sum this up, dePOV it, and put it in the article? Ben ^T/_{C 08:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Science Magazine and Nature

Does anybody have a subscription to Science? Google keeps giving me [3]. Short summary relevant to this article would be appreciated. Ben ^T/_{C 07:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)}

The same for Nature. This and this here are reviews about attitudes towards nuclear energy. Thanks in advance. Ben ^T/_{C 07:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Unverifiable information

Post link or remove this paragraph:

Researchers at Southampton University concluded that a link was present, deducing that radiation damage to men working at the plants had caused genetic abnormalities in their children. After this report British Nuclear Fuels initially advised workers who were being exposed to high levels of radiation not to father children, although they have since withdrawn this advice.

--Trigor 13:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This came from the BNF article. You are right that it needs a reference. I posted a question for references at the talk page there and on the talk page of the anonymous user who wrote it. Ben ^T/_{C 05:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)}

This is clearly wrong or outdated. I am going to change it if I don't get some really good reason not to. I have work for BNFL as a student and have acces to all their documents and articles. I have nevere never seen something like this. Furthermore it sounds rather astonishing to me especialy the thing about fathering. On my link you can see that there is no any link.[4]

--unsigned Trigor (Ben ^T/_{C 07:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC))}

Please do. But don't remove it completely. It seemed to have discussed a lot, so it is relevant to the article. See BNFL for the original paragraph. Ben ^T/_{C 07:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)}

I searched google: Please see http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nc570.pdf and http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/106564984/ABSTRACT

Ben ^T/_{C 07:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Nuclear =! Banks

"This practice is similar to that for banks, which are also backed with government guarantees."

There are hundred things a subsidy is like. Stealing comes to mind. Its probably more like bank robbery than FICA insurance. For one thing FICA protects those who choose to participate. Price anderson REMOVES protections from people whether they choose or not. If an edit war is wanted - promoting Price on anything other than the most neutral grey tone will garentee one. Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Graphs

Hey, it would be nice to have graphs

1. of how many NPPs countries have (like a world map - there are free world maps - in different colors, similar to the capital punishment article maybe) (all the required info is here)
2. of whether they plan to build nuclear power plants or phase-out or whatever (say e.g. "phase-out debated, not debated, phase-out decided, no NPP"). I suggest a world map. This could also be a chart.
3. of how much they rely on nuclear energy and how much they nuclear energy they produce
   1. Western Europe could have a special map as phase-outs are mostly debated there.

Wikipedia has blank maps.

One could have an icon of a NPP and on the countries that have NPPs, like in Risk. The syntax at Meta:Images and other uploaded files for locators could be useful. (More info is on Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials.)

Comments? Suggestions on icons for nuclear power plants? (possibly three: operating/defunct/planned) Ben ^T/_{C 06:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Nuclear proliferation

I would like to discuss two changes. First, I think this is not in order:

This has happened in Israel, India, Iran, North Korea, and South Africa (which later gave up its nuclear weapons).

First of all neither Israel nor Iran nor North Korea nor South Africa had civilian nuclear program when they developed nuclear weapons or they don't have nuclear program for civilian use still. Israel for example doesn't have civilian program at all nor does it generate electricity from nuclear. Same goes for Iran and North Korea. South Africa does have it but the started developing bombs in early 1970s while first reactor was on line in 1984. If you want to include them you should state that their programs were military ones as uninformed reader could conclude they were from civilian one. In addition I hope you could also put "military" reactor as they are used strictly by military and it is not possible to make that kind of plutonium in ordinary reactor.

--Trigor 07:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Simesa added this half-sentence. I will ask for a comment. Ben ^T/_{C 10:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)}

I have no particular problem with the phrase military. I only think, the paragraph sounds a little awkward. It hope also to have references with it. Ben ^T/_{C 10:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)}

What reference do you want. That it is military purpouse or that it needs special reactor or both? --Trigor 10:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

India, Israel, North Korea and South Africa are discussed in nuclear proliferation. Israel's program is said to have started with a desalizination plant. India in particular was supplied reactors under Atoms for Peace and shortly after made weapons, after which the US refused to supply fuel for India's two BWRs (I worked at the fuel company). Pakistan is also covered in nuclear proliferation and [5] and probably should be added to the list.

In most cases the country started out with a research reactor, then acquired power reactors, then made weapons from fuel reprocessed from the research reactor.

I am surprised that Iran is not covered in nuclear proliferation but it is detailed in Iran's nuclear program.

Simesa 11:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Israel doesn't have nuclear power plant. North Korea doesn't have nuclear power plant. South africa had weapons much befor it had nuclear power plant. Iran doesn't have it. What I am saying is that there is not well established link for these countries, nuclear weapons, and nuclear power plant for civilian use. That's why yoú should make this clear. Research reactor and power are significantly different. You don't get that impresion by readin this single sentence. Expand it.

--Trigor 11:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

In each case (Israel, NK, SA) the country started out declaring a peaceful nuclear program ("Nuclear power is the use of sustained nuclear reactions to do useful work") and then surreptitiously built weapons. Iran apprears to be following the same path - there are only so many centrifuges you need to supply a handful of reactors. I will see how this can be added. Simesa 20:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It is like this. According to the IAEA North Korea does not have nuclear power plant. Try to type Norh Korea power plant and you will not get anything because it is military facility and not power plant. According to official data base of Nuclear Reactors North Korea has two reactors in planing. This is article from Encarta [6]. Doesn't say one bit about nuclear power plant. Not enough? This is from CIA yearbook fossil fuel: 29%

hydro: 71% nuclear: 0% other: 0% (2001) [7]

If you are so desperate to list Korea you should point out that it has MILITARY reactor that has very very weak energy capacity indeed

--Trigor 17:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. So the article has to mention North Korea for the proliferation thing and state that nuclear energy generation in North Korea is not noteworthy and that's it. Ben ^T/_{C 08:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)}

Should there be a mantion about the US, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China also? AFAIK in all these countries nuclear weapons preceded (civilian) energy production. 213.243.182.3 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future perspectives of nuclear energy

What about this here? Why did you remove it, Trigor? You don't think that's important for the discussion?

According to the EIA and the IEA, nuclear power is projected to have a slightly declining 5-10% share of world energy production until 2025, assuming that fossil fuel production can continue to expand rapidly (which is controversial). See Future energy development.

Ben ^T/_{C 10:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)}

I do. I didn't remove it.

--Trigor 10:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I checked it: it disappeared like this. A bit strange disappearance because the font is not red as it is supposed to be when something is deleted. Anyway, I'll put it back. Ben ^T/_{C 10:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)}

Yes. I saw. I really didn't have intention to delete it like that. Thank you for puting it back It must have been misstake. My apologises.

--Trigor 11:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure. That can happen. Ben ^T/_{C 11:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Pro and cons discussion at the end

I thought it could be better to merge it into one big pro- AND contra thing, the distinction between pro and contra sections is already getting very blurred anyway. Opinions? Ben ^T/_{C 06:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC) Ben ^T/C 06:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)}

Can you point to similarities? I can't see any. Thanks in advance

--Trigor 13:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Both sections are fairly large - I fear that merging them would make it very difficult for the average reader to see the forest for the trees. I would prefer keeping them separate. Simesa 18:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The main thing is that the discussion on both sides has to try to be NPOV and give arguments that counter its respective position. Therefore it seems straightforward to put them together. And that's what I think most articles, which have a discussion of something, do. However, some articles e.g. on Microsoft or on Linux (and other operating systems) have two sections for both sides. My thought was, if the discussion could be structured better, it would be much easier to read and no need to recurse the argument in two sections. I was just asking for opinions. There seems to be no apparent need for a restructuring. Ben ^T/_{C 08:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Biodegrading?

The section "Greenhouse gases and environmental protection" has:

Nuclear waste is biodegrading, meaning that it will become less radioactive over time.

According to biodegradation, the term specifically relates to degradation caused by biological agents (which is concordant with the etymology of the word).

Radioactive materials such as nuclear waste decay precisely because they are radioactive. The fact of radioactivity guarantees that the amount of radiation will decrease over time.

Unless there's something here I'm missing? Direvus 13:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you don't (miss anything). Ben ^T/_{C 07:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)}

Thanks for correction. --Trigor 13:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a good point. After anything from a few decades to a few millenia (that's a few, about 3000 years max) depending on the fuel cycle used, the residual radioactivity in the waste is less than the radioactivity in the original ore body. So fission reactors actually make the world a less radioactive place within this timescale, and the reduction is permanent from then on. In my experience, most people still do not believe this very simple and relevant fact.

This is in spectacular contrast to two other proposed energy technologies, both (ironically IMO) generally seen as greener than fission.

The first of these of course is fusion. The disposal of the highly radioactive lining material from the first generation of fusion power plants is the second biggest problem still to solve. (The biggest problem is developing materials that will withstand the enormous neutron flux, even for the time between shutdowns to replace the lining, and they are obviously related.) This is new radioactivity; The earth is very, very slightly but permanently more radioactive as a result of even the few small-scale fusion experiments conducted to date.

The second is carbon sequestration. As far as we know, the CO2 we put into the ground is there forever, or at least until it eventually leaks out. Nobody seems to have thought of that! The mind boggles. Andrewa 22:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't correct. When Uranium decays normally it does so in a decay chain that eventually ends at lead, producing very few highly radioactive compounds in the process, and virtually no neutron or gamma emitters ( the most penetrating types of radiation). In contrast, the fission products have a large excess of neutrons (because larger nuclei like uranium are stable at a higher neutron/proton ratio than the smaller fission products) and are hence highly radioactive. Many of them emit neutrons and intense gamma rays which are very tricky to shield against, in contrast to the alpha and beta emitters formed from decaying Uranium which are stopped by an thin aluminium foil. Furthermore, whereas the decay products of uranium are very common in soil and are typically not accumulated in the body, many of the fission products ( such as Iodine or Strontium ) are biologically active, and are hence readily absorbed. Radioactive Iodine, as an example, accumulates in the thyroid gland causing thyroid cancer. Furthermore the compounds formed in a fusion reaction are similar to the fission products. In both cases you take relatively stable nuclei ( Deuterium and Lithium in the case of fusion , Uranium in the case of fission ) and produce far less stable compounds (fission products and activated metals ). You also didn't not consider the potential of fusion's 14MeV neutrons to fission the long lived actinides from fission waste, leaving only fission products with halflives shorter than about 30 years ( Tho this can also be done in some designs of fast neutron reactors ).

The above is full of errors. For example, we're not talking about compounds. These are irrelevant. What we're interested in is the nuclides. Moreover, the natural decay of Uranium produces some highly dangerous radioactive substances, such as Radium and Radon. As to what I didn't not consider, um, yes, there's a theoretical possibility of doing what you're describing. A combined fission/fusion program, using the fusion reactors to transmute the waste from the fission fuel, may be developed... in the second or third generation of fusion plants. But the first generation won't be built for a hundred years or so according to the ITER program documents. So it's highly speculative, and my guess is it won't.

As for CO2 being stored geologically, well where do you think the oil and gas has been lying for a few million years? Carbon sequestration simply puts the carbon back to where it was ( in the ground ) together with some extra oxygen, and less hydrogen. Because the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is so massive ( In excess of 20% as compared to 400ppm for CO2 ) the reduction in atmospheric oxygen is thus nowhere near as much of an impact on the environment as it would be releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere. Yes, geological activity could release some of this CO2, but it wouldn't happen at rates nearly as rapid as current fossil fuel consumption.

Agree. So? I'm not saying that carbon sequestration isn't an enormous improvement on just dumping the stuff into our precious atmosphere, which provides not only our temperature control and breathing gas but also our rainfall. I'm just saying it's still a far scarier risk than burying nuclear waste.

Don't get me wrong, if radioactive waste is reprocessed and the actinides reused as fuel, it is a very potent energy source with manageable waste output, but the same goes for Fusion and Carbon sequestration. All three deserve serious research as they could all help reduce CO2 emissions drastically. 137.205.192.27 20:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree about fission reactors. But there are no runs on the board for fusion or carbon sequestration, and no evidence that either will be able to compete with fission for the next few centuries. Andrewa 13:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That is really good point indeed. Carbon sequestration is still a pilot so I didn’t mention it as it is not mainstream in fossil fuel industry. Overall it is good thing. They are mimicking nuclear fuel cycle. Still we don’t know how it is going to impact the price but if they make it feasible on large scale and apply good containment (let’s not forger it is still toxic) it is the step in the right direction. The only problem is that average fossil fuel power plant pumps 4-8 tons of gasses and ashes into the atmosphere each second . It is going to be real challenge to make storage for that even for short term operation.

The first point is also nicely putted and it deals about morality of use of nuclear power over longer term. Something that some people like to distort. The truth is that nuclear power reduces radioactivity on earth in the longer term. That is not question of POV but of mathematics. Why don’t you put that into the article. Although you would have to explain it thoroughl.

--Trigor 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactor

IMO this page needs a complete refactor. It is too long (61KB), the headings are vague (or have discussed it, other countries), the information repetitive and poorly focussed.

It should have a clearly marked section for countries that have initiated phase out by closing at least one plant (or in one case never opening it!), and another for countries that are committed in some way, for example having an act of parliament that forbids construction of new nuclear power plants.

It's hard to know what to say about other countries, but there's no call for example for a detailed history of nuclear power in the USA, that should go elsewhere, perhaps in an article Nuclear technology in the United States to match Category:Nuclear technology in the United States. Putting this material here creates the impression that the USA has in some way initiated phase-out, which is simply not true, although their once clear lead in this technology has been substantially reduced over the last few decades.

On the other hand Oregon and California have initiated a phase-out locally, and closed Trojan and Rancho Seco respectively to implement it. That deserves a mention. Are there other states that have done likewise?

We should probably have a paragraph on New Zealand, which is widely and falsely believed to have an act of parliament banning nuclear power. Whether we should even mention countries such as France, China and Japan who are currently installing new capacity I'm inclined to doubt; This information is probably better in a separate article.

Nor should a country be listed here simply because one or more of its minority parties have opposed nuclear power; This has probably occurred in all countries if we look hard enough.

This article has improved a lot, but more is needed. Comments on the above proposals welcome. Andrewa 04:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is indeed very big and unfocused, that's correct. In some cases the sections are not clearly drawn, that's also true. And it seems to confuse a lot of people if countries are mentioned, which are not phasing-out (but, e.g. never relied on nuclear energy). Phase-outs have been discussed in many countries. The question is, whether (in some cases minor) debates in a particular country justify mentioning here or whether the criteria for inclusion should be stricter. I wanted this article to discuss the broader issue of countries that don't use nuclear energy, the political climate in those countries (reasoning and arguments), and the consequences of not using it. I can't think of an obvious title for such an article, though, and I see there is a problem with a (perceived or actual) mismatch of the current title and the content. Therfore, I agree with your proposal.

Some stuff could be moved to country-specific articles, as you indicated (BTW, I think there will be many many country-specific articles in the future, e.g. Earthquakes in Turkey, so this development would be just natural), some to the orphaned Nuclear energy policy (that you criticized very much, also). I'd appreciate more suggestions. Ben ^T/_C 02:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions for where the more general material on nuclear power politics might better go:

• There's already an article on the generic anti-nuclear movement at anti-nuclear.
• Anti-nuclear movement is a disambiguation because apparently there's a UK disarmament group that also claims the name, but it seems to me this is the best place for this information. The disambiguation could be handled by a notice at the top of the article, as is the normal practice.

Ultimately some more refactoring will be needed of these articles in turn. In particular, at present there is no significant separation between the lobby groups opposing nuclear bombs and those opposing nuclear power, but there is every hope that this may come, and of course many of us who are in favour of nuclear power regard them as related but significantly different issues.

There is no doubt that the anti-nuclear movement has had some significant successes, including phase-outs in some places. But the details of all of these successes don't belong in this article IMO, and the details of the whole anti-nuclear campaign certainly don't. Andrewa 00:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made a small start with the section on Italy. Comments welcome.

IMO the entire section Nuclear power phase-out#Introduction should be removed, possibly to history of nuclear power. It's not directly about phase-out, and when I try to rewrite it I get the feeling that I'm writing an essay, not an encyclopedia article. I don't think it's good to even have a section labelled introduction in most cases; The introduction should precede the first heading, and therefore the TOC, and be less than one screenful so that the top of the TOC is visible below it when the reader first sees the article. A labelled intro almost always goes the way of this one and becomes an essay, or quite often it starts out that way!

There should be a section Countries and states that have initiated phase-out listing only countries such as Italy, Austria and the Philippines where some action has been taken. I say States so we can list the USA here, with subsections on Oregon and California. Andrewa 02:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I am ok with everything you say. I also like your edit in the section on Italy very much (please provide a source, though). You are right about introductions in general (they tend to become WP:OR) and I further think it would be more NPOV if some stuff from the introduction here would move to anti-nuclear. I only want to ask you to wait before we start moving stuff to other articles because I am busy this and next week. Ben ^T/_C 08:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see what you are worried about. Even if you objected violently to my edits in the next week, they'd only be there for a week. Even that seems unlikely.

But the article has been in its current rather sloppy anti-nuclear manifesto form for some time, so if it makes you happier I'll wait. Another week won't hurt.

I'm not convinced that a source is necessary for anything I have added to the section on Italy. The Wikipedia policy is that things should be verifiable. Anyone who can use Google can easily verify these facts. While citations are good in general, excessive citations result in needless maintenance overheads keeping the unnecessary links current, and also make the article read like a POV essay rather than an encyclopedia article.

What I will do is to create a new stub for Enel SpA, which seems a suitable place for these particular external links, and will make them available to this article via the Wikilink. The ENEL article has been deleted once as a substub, which was valid but not IMO a good decision when the subject was the third largest energy supplier in the world! Perhaps we chould have as an additional policy for speedy delete something like don't delete any article which would quite obviously survive AfD. Andrewa 17:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the references, hmm, my consideration was that this here is controversial, so there should be stricter rules for referencing as elsewhere. That's why I asked anybody to provide references and I myself have tried to backup all claims. Good solution with ENEL :). Unbelievable, third biggest energy supplier in the world and article gets deleted...

If I ask you to wait it doesn't mean I don't trust you. What you are suggesting is, more or less, breaking up the whole article and there is some stuff I would prefer to do myself and I know it will consume a lot of time. Ben ^T/_C 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Accept the point re trust.

Re being controversial, I suggest that the ideal is that no article here should be controversial. The subject may be, but the article should be something both sides regard as accurate and informative. Presumably, both sides think that these facts back their particular POV.

They (we) can then cite this article in their (our) rhetoric on appropriate websites, in my case including KnowNukes and alderspace. Andrewa 01:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Another place for some of the politics might be the existing article at nuclear power controversy. Much of the material to be removed from this article is there already. Andrewa 22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Million-billion

Is there a Wikipedia convention for using the word 'billion' in the sense of 10⁹ exclusive to 10¹² (British)? --DV8 2XL 18:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

While I cannot find a Wikipedia convention, the long scale is falling out of use in British English. The UK government, in official documents, exclusively uses short scale. For reference, see Names_of_numbers_in_English. S.N. Hillbrand 23:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is "don't use billions", use "1,000 millions" instead. Long and short scales are a subtle argument and many take their own custom for granted, resulting in misunderstandings. --Orzetto 14:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. IMO there should be a Wikipedia policy don't use the term "billion" if you can avoid it. It could be unavoidable in a quotation for example; It could even be the case in some quotations that we don't know which figure was intended, only what was said! But otherwise, as well as 1,000 million (or million million for the British billion) there are a number of other avoidance strategies, such as scientific notation and the correct (please!) use of SI prefixes. Andrewa 02:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This discution came about as I made an entry that reported the timescale of the Oklo reactors in 'millions of years' only to have it changed to 'billions'. In the entry Natural nuclear fission reactor I had used '2000 million years' already to avoid this confusion. I also agree it might be well be time for a policy on this issue --DV8 2XL 02:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estimate for damages of a nuclear accident?

The paragraph about Insurances does a good job at describing shortly the insurance system in the US (the systems in effect in other relevant countries, such as France and Japan, should be added). I understand $10,000 million is the coverage available before taxpayers must start paying for damages. However, how much is this damage likely going to be? Has anyone a monetization of the Chernobyl accident, if only as an order of magnitude? What about Three Mile Island? --Orzetto 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a very good question, and I'd like to see these figures too. At present the article blandly states that the TMI accident loss was below the private insurance threshhold, but doesn't quote the figure or cite its source.

As you say, the question is the likely loss. So far as insurance risk goes, it's not just the magnitude of the loss that is relevant, but also the likelihood. So to make a dollar figure meaningful, we need an estimate of its probability as well. Either figure on its own is meaningless.

In the case of this class of accident for a generation III reactor, the probability is extremely low, but the potential loss is high enough for a single claim to bankrupt the insurer. Under these circumstances, conventional insurance is quite simply useless. The reason it is unavailable is that insurance companies aren't supposed to issue meaningless policies!

Agree that it would also be good to give the larger picture. This section is entirely about the USA, whose relevance to the world nuclear industry is still significant but has been slowly and steadily dropping year by year. Andrewa 23:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

See KnowNukes archive for one summary of the insurance position internationally. I'll look further. Andrewa 23:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'll also search for some info. (Compare our earlier discussion here.) Ben ^T/_C 00:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act gives a figure of $70 million for the TMI Nuclear Insurance Pool payout under the P-A act. Andrewa 03:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As for TMI there were no significant releases there was no significant damage outside. However the cleanup of TMI-2 was quite expensive and was rated at $973 million. The bill was footed jointly by insurer and utility. No taxpayer money was used. Most of the money came from TMI-1 which is one of the top rated reactors world wide. So the figure is not representative as it is only partially covered by PA as Andrewa tells us. As for Chernobyl I can't find accurate estimate. But it is most likely above $5 billion. Great damage was also the loss of remaining 4 reactors (2 planed and 2 in operating conditions) that had been shut down under pressure from EU in 2000. That alone accounts for $3 billion. Not to mention natureal gas costs that is going to rise (e.g. Russian-Ukraniak gass dispute) --Trigor 12:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear power in Denmark

As asked by Ben on the Danish wikipedians notice board, here are some facts about Danish Nuclear Power. Since it is not in the article, i would like to point your attention to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Danish_wikipedians%27_notice_board#nuclear_power_phase-out (unsigned comment by User:87.49.114.61. Attributed by Ben ^T/_C 20:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Greenhouse gases and environmental protection

I've re-included a modified version of my original sentence which was removed by Trigor:

"However, an issue of debate [66] is that greenhouse emissions from mining, milling and enrichment may be substantially greater in the future as the world's reserves of high grade uranium are depleted, and low grade uranium is increasingly used."

I have left the paragraph that follows, which was added by Trigor. The references refer mainly to current life cycle analysis. The issue of the grade of ore utilised is common to all mined ores - high grade resources are mined first followed by diminishing grades. This is non-controversial. Some sources refute the claim that this will substantially increase greenhouse emissions, but the issue is one of legitimate debate, and is argued strongly by others. It should remain of point of debate. --User:GrahamP 7 March 2006

Look. I did not intend to remove your sentence. However your point steams from Storm van Leeuwen & Smith. No other study has ever managed to reproduce their results and that is because their numbers are simply wrong and discredited. Evidence of that can be found on many places and some of them are listed. In the BBC link I can't see some connection with this debate. But because we should accept points of view we disagree with, leave your sentence in the current form but you have to state the writers of the papers. Personally I did remove your part but have restated it all over again before showing contradictions in the study. Now it's a bit stupid because you are saying your bit:

"However, an issue of debate [66] is that greenhouse emissions from mining, milling and enrichment may be substantially greater in the future as the world's reserves of high grade uranium are depleted, and low grade uranium is increasingly used. [67] This view is not supported by the nuclear power industry."

And than:

"In a semi-technical paper Storm van Leeuwen & Smith named “Is Nuclear Power Sustainable? and its May 2002 successor: Can Nuclear Power Provide Energy for the Future; would it solve the CO2-emission problem?”. In these they alleged that nuclear power would eventually surpass fossil fuels in green house gases emission as high grade ore becomes scarce, thus putting in doubt it’s substantiality and part of environmental protection. However this paper has been dismissed as false by industry. Published results on ore extraction are showing 99% advantage for nuclear based generation on the bases of CO2 emissions over fossil fuels. Thus authors greatly reduced its paper and republished it in 2005, omitting most of numerical values they used in previous paper. Even these are proved wrong by life cycle studies (e.g. Vattenfal). All this heavily disputes article which forecasts are alleged wrong for basis for them, current data, is proven wrong even 3:1 in some cases. For greater details please review 68 [69]"

We are repeating the same thing

And yes. The claim that emission will rise in the future is controversial because article does not take account for advancement in enrichment technology or utilization of breeders once high grade ore becomes scarce. This would results in even lower emissions than today. There is no debate regarding this issue because you can't play poker if you don't have any cards. But if you can point to other scientific papers please do. I will read them just like I did read the last one you have sent. Thanks --Trigor 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The same Storm van Leeuwen & Smith paper (http://www.stormsmith.nl/) claims that if worldwide electrical energy demands were met solely by nuclear, that known reserves of nuclear fuel would be used up within 4 years. Does anyone know if such an expiry in a single-digit number of years is verifiable? If true, then it should point to nuclear power never being more than a stop-gap solution, but it's a bold claim I've never seen elsewhere. 57.66.65.38 19:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Andrew http://www.techmind.org/

I believe that it could be true, but only if some very negligent assumptions are made. The paper must be assuming that nuclear power will never be recycled (which obviously is wrong because it is recycled in many countries). In the US, spent fuel is classified by the government as "waste", and therefore must be dealt with as waste as opposed to a recyclable material. However, only a fraction the energy from the fuel is actually used our light water reactors. Fuel can also be designed for breeder reactors, which by definition create more fuel than is used. This makes nuclear power much more sustainable (on the order of centuries), although it is not completely sustainable because the fuel will eventually run out of fertile elements. Fertile elements are those which can be transmuted into fuel for nuclear power. I'm sure the article also doesn't consider Thorium, which is a very abundant fertile fuel which can also be used in the process of breeding.

But this does go to show that, even though there is not much spent fuel (The US has over 100 reactors which have been running for many decades, all the spent fuel could fit in a football field 5 yards deep.), not recycling the spent fuel is very wasteful because it has the potential to allow us to become almost completely sustainable. Ajnosek 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is someone having a bit of fun?

Nuclear reactors do not emit greenhouse gases or ash during normal operation

I hope not! --Dilaudid 15:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wind the "only" alternative?

Ok, since my (relatively minor) revision was reverted, I'd like to ask about the support for the statement "# Wind power - the only alternative which directly mitigates the effects of global warming"

Is this anything other than an opinion? Aren't there other options that "mitigate the effects of global warming"? How does wind power mitigate said effects? This seems to me to be a statement openly biased in favor of wind power. I'll admit I'm not in favor of that power source (finding it horribly inefficient, especially on calm days), but I don't go to the alernative energy article and lampoon it as the joke I believe it is.--G 1 17:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium

Is it proofed that there is no realistic way for a "fast" nuclear power phase-out? Seems to be a bit unneutral! --Edroeh 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets compare like periods

This segment: " a nuclear reactor can operate for 9-12 months on a few million dollars worth of fuel and maintenance while a coal-fired plant consumes tens of thousands of dollars of fuel a day. " We probably shoudn't compare one year of operation with one day of operation. Mathiastck 18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random POV and other needed changes

This article has come a long way, and it is much better now. But I still take issue with certain points in the article. Let me show what I think should be changed:

Arguments for the phase-out:Economy

I feel this whole section is bad. First of all, it is from a source which is ten years old. It says:

• Costs of competing sources of energy, as oil, natural gas and coal should increase unrealistically for nuclear power to be competitive".

Nuclear power has always been one of the cheapest forms of energy, even back then and that shouldn't be controversial. On top of that, it is saying that the price of fossil fuels 'probably won't increase enough to make nuclear competitive'. Well this prediction turns out not to be true. Back then, natural gas was expect to stay around $2/MMBTU. Last winter it went over $15/MMBTU, and right now is steady at over $6/MMBTU: http://www.wtrg.com/daily/oilandgasspot.html

It also states:

• The plant fleet seldom operates at full power capacity, but only at a fraction (Paine reports 58% as typical), since some plants must periodically stop for safety controls. Increasing this percentage would therefore pose an inherent risk.

When all 104 nuclear power plants are operating at full capacity is a very curious and misleading number to use. First of all, there is no context to this. All the wind farm plants in the US would NEVER operate at full capacity. Nuclear power plants would undoubtably actually be the highest out of all the types of energy prodution. Second of all, once again this data must be 10 years old, and capacity factor of nuclear power has nearly maxed out since then. Thirdly, the number that should be used is the "average capacity factor", in which I believe for nuclear power plants is about 92%. Finally, the main reason nuclear power plants stop is to refuel, not because they are not safe.

• Construction cost are unlikely to be recovered by operating the plant, with expected lifetime and revenue;

If that was true, nuclear power plants would not be built because they would never turn a profit...and yet they are all over the world in Japan, China, India, Finland, etc. Furthermore, in the US, the NRC expects about 12 applications for 18-20 nuclear power plants in the coming years.

Paine does not discuss environmental issues such as waste disposal. He also laments that precise data on the economic viability of nuclear power is not made available to the public.

This does not have much to do with this sub-topic and should be moved/deleted. As a whole, the entire sub-section should probably be deleted since the argument doesn't hold any water.

______________________________

Arguments against the phase-out:Greenhouse gases and environmental protection

There has recently been a renewed interest in nuclear energy as a solution to dwindling oil reserves and global warming because electricity demand is increasing and nuclear power generates virtually no greenhouse gases, in contrast to common alternatives such as coal. It has been proposed as a solution to the greenhouse effect (e.g. "nukes are green."[59][60][61]) This has been disputed by several environmentalist organizations.[62]

"This" is ambiguous. What do they dispute? Certainly because nuclear power doesn't emit GHG, it is a possible solution. It should read: Several environmental organizations dispute nuclear power is a good solution.

______________________________

Nuclear reactors do not emit greenhouse gases or ash during normal operation; however the mining and processing of uranium involves emissions. Emissions that arise from the whole life cycle are comparable to wind energy.[64] However, an issue of debate [65] is that greenhouse emissions from mining, milling and enrichment may be substantially greater in the future as the world's reserves of high grade uranium are depleted, and low grade uranium is increasingly used.[66] This view is not supported by the nuclear power industry.

What constitutes "substantially greater"? Could it be MORE than coal plants? ...or would it still be LESS than solar power? Some context would be nice here.

_______________________________

After 50 years 99.1% of radiation will have been emitted.

This is worded badly. For someone reading this who doesn't know what radiation is, they may ask, "Emitted where? Into the atmosphere? Into my lungs?" It should say: "99.1% of the radioactivity will be gone after 50 years."

_______________________________

Also, I believe that the section Countries that have initiated a phase out or have discussed it should be split into two sections since some countries which have "discussed it" are actually ALSO discussing building new ones (such as Switzerland): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/06/world/main1183535.shtml

Finally, this article could also use some context. As a whole, more than 70 nuclear power plants (by many countries) are being built/planned around the world, which I bet is more than the ones being "phased-out". http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf47.htm

That is my two cents. I put this all in here to discuss these things first before I make changes, because I know many people are opinionated about this article. Ajnosek 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chernobyl figures

According to all official reports (they can be seen at IAEA website number stands at 41. Others are unofficial and if quoted they must be named as such. --Trigor 10:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be important to include the best estimates for latent fatalities too, and talk about why these estimates vary so much. Maybe we could provide some figures of deaths per TWy to provide some context with other energy sources. (or just refer to the chernobyl accident page.) Ajnosek 06:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to a previous text until we don't get this straight here in discussion. Here's the deal. There is only one official estimate. The rest are unofficial and private papers. If you insist on putting it make that clear. Next according to that official estimate that can be obtained for free on www.iaea.org 43 includes latent casualties as well. They have estimate that based on 25 years of experience they estimated that up to 4000 people could and I repeat could die as a consequence of Chernobyl, including accident and emergency response crew. Please review this report. Here's the link [www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf]. This is official report. Up till now 43 people died (including latent causes). THe paper also warns of exaggerations that have been made. This is preview. There are also more detailed documents available from IAEA. In case your bandwidth is limited you can also order the report from IAEA, to be delivered by post. Pages of interest are 12 to 14 although whole report is very interesting for reading. --Trigor 15:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spain

According to http://www.uic.com.au/nip19.htm :

Spain has a program to add 810 MWe (11%) to its nuclear capacity through upgrading its nine reactors by up to 13%. For instance, the Almarez nuclear plant is being boosted by more than 5% at a cost of US$ 50 million. Some 519 MWe of the increase is already in place.

That's not the impression you'd get from the current article, which reads as though Spain is closing down its nukes, not investing heavily in upgrading them. Andrewa 02:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] contradict

"As of 2005, South Korea has 18 operational nuclear power reactors, with two more under construction and scheduled to go online by 2004." - Do i have to say more? Experts in temporal relations needed.... or indeed this is a very sarcastic comment, and therefore unsuitable in an encyclopedia.-- ExpImp^talkcon 22:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)